The story is just quick information about the Court agreeing to hear the Oregan case and about them coming back from a break. Then there is a reference to sexual devices. What is up with that?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=acPvaxBNR9Ac&refer=top_world_news#
That probably was just an editing error. In other Supreme Court news today, the Court rejected an appeal of a law banning sex toys.
The Bloomberg editor probably cut off a discussion of the sexual devices ruling, but didn’t cut far enough.
How… strangely appropriate.
Heh. Just…heh.
Whoopsies.
On the serious hand: I agree with the editing mistake theory.
On the not-so-serious hand: I think a thread titled “Sexual Devices out of No where” posted by a user with “Latex Division” in their handle is one of the funnier things I’ve come across today. Although it’s still early, I’m working my way up from BBQ pit (for some odd reason I’ve gotten into the habit of reading the Dope from bottom-up).
snerkdie Those editors…
Billdo is correct. The Bloomberg editors will insert sub-headlines at certain intervals in copy for the same reason that the Wall Street Journal’s editors do so with their newspaper’s interminable Page One stories - it’s easier for readers to digest a story if it has a visual break every so often, rather than appearing as one unbroken mass. The sub-heads will refer to something that’s coming up in the following text. In this case, the website story contains a stray sub-headline that obvously (IMHO) refers to the sex-toys decision.
ColonelDax, wire-service journalist
I shudder to think what “bonna fide medical, ligislative or judicialpurposes” may be.
:eek: :eek: :eek: